m******1
发帖数: 19713 | 1 Fed Judge Won't Throw Out Prop. 8 Decision
By Andrew Harmon
VAUGHN WALKER X390 (SFGATE) | ADVOCATE.COM
Supporters of California’s Proposition 8 were dealt a blow Tuesday when a
federal judge refused their request to throw out Judge Vaughn Walker’s
trial court decision because he is in a same-sex relationship.
“The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or
persnal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that
the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way
that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis
for either recusal or disqualification," U.S. chief district judge James
Ware wrote in a 21-page ruling issued this afternoon.
Judge Walker, Ware wrote, “was not required to recuse himself … on the
ground that he was engaged in a long-term same-sex relationship and, thus,
could reap speculative benefit from an injunction halting enforcement of
Proposition 8 in California. In particular, in a case involving laws
restricting the right of various members of the public to marry, any
personal interest that a judge gleans as a member of the public who might
marry is too attenuated to warrant recusal.”
Judge Ware rejected Prop. 8 supporters’ arguments that Walker had a greater
interest in the outcome of the case than the general public: “The fact
that this is a case challenging a law on equal protection and due process
grounds being prosecuted by members of a minority group does not mean that
members of the minority group have a greater interest in equal protection
and due process than the rest of society."
“In our society, a variety of citizens of different backgrounds coexist
because we have constitutionally bound ourselves to protect the fundamental
rights of one another from being violated by unlawful treatment. Thus, we
all have an equal stake in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a
restriction on a fundamental right,” Ware wrote.
During a Monday hearing on the matter, Ware said that Prop. 8 supporters’
motion to vacate Walker’s judgment was the first time that a party had
urged a jurist’s disqualification based on sexual orientation. He grilled
attorney Charles J. Cooper, who argued that Walker had a duty to disclose
his relationship, on what direct evidence existed that Judge Walker sought
to marry his partner and thus personally benefit from a verdict favoring
marriage equality. |
|
